Everybody knows that Washington prayed a bunch. He famously prayed before throwing a JFK Quarter across the Hudson River. He was praying to that most athletic of all saints.. Saint Elvis. Bigfoot even showed me the polaroid that BOTH Washington and the King signed.
I think I won this round of lying like Barton. Go ahead,I dare ya all, try and beat me!
“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory,”
Funny how people and organizations like Dave Barton and the NRA who normally despise the ACLU enlist their help when it conveniently suits their needs.
Barton (along with First Liberty) and the gun nuts show they don't have the courage of their convictions. They are (surprise surprise) brazen hypocrites.
So many decades of bashing and slandering the "godless" ACLU while omitting every credible account of ACLU defending Christians lest their continuous claims about the ACLU being against God and country falls apart like a deck of cards. And yet turn around and seek the ACLU organization for help defending their shenanigans only when it suits them and nothing else. If that doesn't reek pure Christian hypocrisy, what does?
Advertisers at least exaggerate for a living, if not outright lie. Barton lies with a consistency which approaches that of the Mango Messiah, though he doesn't get as much press about that. I reluctantly agree with Hemant that the ACLU should win the case, though purely on free speech terms.
I also think there needs to be a fuller disclosure about the elements that Barton wants to promote ... because, yet again, he is lying through his teeth.
If Barton got on the stand and said his ad is puffery and therefore legal, that would be awesome. Something Hemant could quote for years. Doubt it's going to happen though.
Maybe? The defense could use it to show his ad falls into the 'varying public opinion' category, but I suspect that's not going to be what the case hinges on. It'll hinge on whether WMATA has clear-cut rules, with a rational basis, that it follows consistently.
Fortunately for Barton, there is no legal definition of a historian, because he may as well be calling himself an astronaut. He lacks the educational credentials to teach American history at the elementary school level. No university that wanted to hold on to its accreditation would hire Barton to teach anything.
𝘏𝘰𝘸 light? Each defendant's letter consists of exactly 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 (and neither sentence is particularly long). Neither contains references to specific actions for which they are sorry, there are no expressions of regret, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and certainly no promises to make things right. The "letters" are comparable in tone and word choice to an average corporate termination notice- completely impersonal, detached, and about as warm as the south side of an Antarctic glacier in a blizzard.
They've somehow managed to come across as even less contrite than if they'd just gone with a conventional victim-blaming not-pology... which I suppose is a novel achievement in and of itself.
"It’s almost more surprising that Barton accepted the help.)"
Owning the libs is a tenet of his religion.
If the bus company is owned by the state isn't putting farton's ads promoting one religion on them illegal ?
RATP' buses also have ads on them. I have yet to see one promoting religion or atheism. Most of the time they are for movies or exhibitions. If anyone complained it didn't end in a trial.
"Hi Donald. It's me, Rudy...Rudy Giuliani...You remember. I was your lawyer once. Listen, I'm in a bit of a bind at the present. Do you think you see your way clear to loaning me $150 million dollars? I'm a bit cash-strapped and...Hello? Hello?"
David Barton is on a par with David Irving. Unfortunately, even after Irving sued Deborah Libstadt he still has a following. If only we could arrange it so that free speech didn't include lying.
What happens now? Easy. If you're a Christian? Stand with those soon-to-be-renamed churches who support LGBTQs and abandon those who failed to live up to the teachings of Jesus, who said to love everyone.
Wait a couple decades... then watch the queerphobic congregations pretend that they were actually on the right side of history, just like the pro-slavery and pro-segregation churches did.
Honest! We're good Christians who would never ever fib. Don't bother checking into that claim. We're 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 telling you the truth. 𝘏𝘦𝘺, 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬!
Love how Christians claimed to have led the way on abolition. Might have helped their credibility if they hadn't been participating in and profiting from the institution of slavery to begin with.
Wanna know who has credibility on slavery? Thomas Paine. In a time when others owned slaves, he did not. He found it cruel. And he wasn't even a Christian.
Or the rcc pretending they were the first to promote equality between men and women, when they forbid divorce, contraception and abortion. The lowest peasant woman from Ancient Egypt would laugh.
OT but important as hell: A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
The more of a mess he makes, and the more it blows up in the news, the more they can get away with while the public eye is watching the spectacle and not the 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 of the GQP's fuckery.
Semi OT : Governements should never meddle with history*, it can easily be turned into propaganda.
Jules Michelet, albeit liberal, was a nationalist and promoted "Le roman hational". Nearly 2 centuries later historians are still debunking his falsehoods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Michelet
I'm reminded of a case, some years ago, where an atheist group was trying to get a bus ad placed- I forget in what city (does anyone else remember this one?)- and the ad proposals kept getting rejected as too inflammatory. The message got shorter and shorter and the ad less and less elaborate with each successive proposal, until finally the ad consisted simply of the word "Atheism" on a blank background. The ad 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 got rejected at least once more; I can't recall whether or not it was approved on appeal, or whether there was a lawsuit over it, or what the end result of the whole episode was.
(*𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵- Based on others' posts below, I suspect I might be thinking of several different cases and misremembering them as the same one. Which... kinda makes it 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦, come to think of it.)
The point being... we've all seen how Christians react when anyone tries to remind them that theirs isn't the only worldview allowed out in daylight. Hell, we got a potent reminder of their petulance just last night! The examples of Christians attempting- by abuse of authority or, when that fails, by violence- to exclude other viewpoints from public life are too numerous to count... but I can't think offhand of a single instance of religious discrimination in this country, against a Christian, by anyone else besides 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 Christian (and certainly not over anything as widely popular in Christian circles as the "Christian Nation" lie).
So... I'm gonna go ahead and "Press X to Doubt" that there was any religious discrimination involved here. I somehow can't see there being enough non-Christians, let alone non-Christians who actively 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦 Christians, in whichever WMATA office approves transit ads to 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 engage in anti-Christian discrimination with any degree of success. It's far more likely that someone in the office recognized the proposed ads for the misinformation they are, or that some other factor led to the rejection.
...and now I think my memory must have mushed several different cases together. Either that's a sad commentary on how often shit like this has happened, or I need to have a second cup of coffee before I hit the keyboard. Or both.
I wonder what would happen if I approached the transit authority with an offer to buy thousands of dollars worth of ads that said "David Barton of Wallbuilders is a proven serial liar and nobody should trust a single thing he ever says." Would this perhaps run afoul of the policy of declining anything “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying public opinions”? Or would the fact that it's 100% factually accurate override that? I guess what I'm really asking here is "What's more important, facts or opinions?".
Probably neither. Feelings, especially those of butt-hurt Christian snowflakes, most likely override any other consideration, possibly including decisions regarding advertisements.
Ya know ... I never cared for that noise back when it was Stephen Colbert's shtick, never thought it was funny. Now, to me, it's just one more indicator of the lack of respect for actual facts and truth.
I would tend to use "pseudo-historian" rather than serial liar, although I imagine at least some of the people who read it wouldn't understand what it means.
Everybody knows that Washington prayed a bunch. He famously prayed before throwing a JFK Quarter across the Hudson River. He was praying to that most athletic of all saints.. Saint Elvis. Bigfoot even showed me the polaroid that BOTH Washington and the King signed.
I think I won this round of lying like Barton. Go ahead,I dare ya all, try and beat me!
Liar! The JFK coin is 50 cents!
“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory,”
🤡
Somehow I doubt First Libery would return the favor if the Satanic Temple had an ad rejected.
Yeah, it’s almost as if their mission isn’t actually religious liberty.
They think religious liberty means everyone is free to believe only what they do.
Which sect does one believe? They all claim to be the 'right' one.
The one that believes the dictator is the savior.
𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳𝘴 of course. You should hear their pipe band!
There are more than 45,000 different Christian sects spread around the entire world. They're gonna have to narrow it down some.
I suggest a Battle Royale. Last one standing must be the correct one.
Didn't Europe try that?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c6be5a5d1ccbdbf06f6ada562b5245dda44b737fc53fca31e1854c56e23f188.jpg
Their gonna need a bigger chart...and a bigger wall.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Never trust David Barton.
"You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim"
Floopy.
Take 2:
Here's someone you should never trust. Ever.
https://imgflip.com/i/1lrowj
Can I get David Barton some iocaine powder?
Funny how people and organizations like Dave Barton and the NRA who normally despise the ACLU enlist their help when it conveniently suits their needs.
Barton (along with First Liberty) and the gun nuts show they don't have the courage of their convictions. They are (surprise surprise) brazen hypocrites.
So many decades of bashing and slandering the "godless" ACLU while omitting every credible account of ACLU defending Christians lest their continuous claims about the ACLU being against God and country falls apart like a deck of cards. And yet turn around and seek the ACLU organization for help defending their shenanigans only when it suits them and nothing else. If that doesn't reek pure Christian hypocrisy, what does?
"Find the perfect gift."
I got that 'gift' as a child. I exchanged it.
Advertisers at least exaggerate for a living, if not outright lie. Barton lies with a consistency which approaches that of the Mango Messiah, though he doesn't get as much press about that. I reluctantly agree with Hemant that the ACLU should win the case, though purely on free speech terms.
I also think there needs to be a fuller disclosure about the elements that Barton wants to promote ... because, yet again, he is lying through his teeth.
If Barton got on the stand and said his ad is puffery and therefore legal, that would be awesome. Something Hemant could quote for years. Doubt it's going to happen though.
Regardless, questioning and cross-examination both are liable to be ... INTERESTING.
Maybe? The defense could use it to show his ad falls into the 'varying public opinion' category, but I suspect that's not going to be what the case hinges on. It'll hinge on whether WMATA has clear-cut rules, with a rational basis, that it follows consistently.
And that "consistency" may be a considerable bone of contention, depending on their history of ad acceptance or rejection.
Fortunately for Barton, there is no legal definition of a historian, because he may as well be calling himself an astronaut. He lacks the educational credentials to teach American history at the elementary school level. No university that wanted to hold on to its accreditation would hire Barton to teach anything.
He doesn't have the educational credentials to teach acorn management to a squirrel, let alone to teach anything to a child.
I think he has a degree in Bible studies from Oral Roberts.
Found it in a Cracker Jack box..
That and $3.90* will get you a ride on the subway.
* I forgot that NYC recently raised the fare to $2.90 plus the $1.00 fee for the card that you must use to pay for the ride.
Oral BOB ?
Always wondered what the 'B' in Oral-B toothbrushes meant.
OT- In a development that should surprise nobody, the apology letters written by former Team Chump attorneys Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro as part of their plea deals are 𝘫𝘶𝘶𝘶𝘶𝘴𝘵 a little bit light on substance and sincerity: https://apnews.com/article/georgia-election-case-apology-letters-powell-chesebro-15a8facccf0ee6f1f25b70af6bed8801
𝘏𝘰𝘸 light? Each defendant's letter consists of exactly 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 (and neither sentence is particularly long). Neither contains references to specific actions for which they are sorry, there are no expressions of regret, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and certainly no promises to make things right. The "letters" are comparable in tone and word choice to an average corporate termination notice- completely impersonal, detached, and about as warm as the south side of an Antarctic glacier in a blizzard.
They've somehow managed to come across as even less contrite than if they'd just gone with a conventional victim-blaming not-pology... which I suppose is a novel achievement in and of itself.
I made more effort on my last maths test. I wrote two sentences.
Even Trump puts in more effort thinking up excuses.
The Art of the Excuse
"It’s almost more surprising that Barton accepted the help.)"
Owning the libs is a tenet of his religion.
If the bus company is owned by the state isn't putting farton's ads promoting one religion on them illegal ?
RATP' buses also have ads on them. I have yet to see one promoting religion or atheism. Most of the time they are for movies or exhibitions. If anyone complained it didn't end in a trial.
Ha Ha
Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay nearly $150 million in damages.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/rudy-giuliani-defamation-trial-verdict/index.html
Calling it now- he'll try to pay them with Monopoly money.
Coupons to Four Seasons (Landscaping).
Only the 20s are green. Bet he tries to pay off in the orange 500s.
Another candidate for "Dumbest Lawyer Not Named Larry Klayman."
I suspect the amount will be downgraded on appeal, but it's the thought that counts
They only asked for 25M each.
As long as it stays in the millions.
Slow clap 👏🏼
"Hi Donald. It's me, Rudy...Rudy Giuliani...You remember. I was your lawyer once. Listen, I'm in a bit of a bind at the present. Do you think you see your way clear to loaning me $150 million dollars? I'm a bit cash-strapped and...Hello? Hello?"
drumpster next interview.
"Rudy who ? I never heard of him before. Theses pictures ? Obviously fakes made by Michelle Clinton."
Excellent. Of course he doesn't have the money – will they put him in debtors prison then?😇
It would be lovely to see all of his assets seized and him forced to survive on $14,891 a year - the current poverty level for a single person.
Oh, I wouldn't mind him living on substantially more than that. Let's say... $45,771 a year sounds about right to me.
It's the average cost of incarceration per inmate.
I'd like to see him life off that in NYC.
He couldn't afford to live in the Bronx/South Bronx.
7945 $ the RSA* for a year for a single person without resources.
* Sum payed by the government for people who have no jobs and no (unemployment insurance ?).
David Barton is on a par with David Irving. Unfortunately, even after Irving sued Deborah Libstadt he still has a following. If only we could arrange it so that free speech didn't include lying.
🤮
*Gone watch a Irving Finkel video.*
?????????????????????????????????????????????
Un Irving peut en cacher un autre. Irving Finkel is a real historian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Finkel
A quarter of U.S. congregations in the United Methodist Church have received permission to leave the denomination during a five-year window : https://apnews.com/article/70b8c89ea49174597f4548c249bab24f
What happens now? Easy. If you're a Christian? Stand with those soon-to-be-renamed churches who support LGBTQs and abandon those who failed to live up to the teachings of Jesus, who said to love everyone.
Wait a couple decades... then watch the queerphobic congregations pretend that they were actually on the right side of history, just like the pro-slavery and pro-segregation churches did.
Honest! We're good Christians who would never ever fib. Don't bother checking into that claim. We're 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 telling you the truth. 𝘏𝘦𝘺, 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬!
Love how Christians claimed to have led the way on abolition. Might have helped their credibility if they hadn't been participating in and profiting from the institution of slavery to begin with.
Wanna know who has credibility on slavery? Thomas Paine. In a time when others owned slaves, he did not. He found it cruel. And he wasn't even a Christian.
Or the rcc pretending they were the first to promote equality between men and women, when they forbid divorce, contraception and abortion. The lowest peasant woman from Ancient Egypt would laugh.
The same RCC who took over 350 years to finally admit that Galileo had been right and that they had been wrong.
You need permission? That's weird.
Yep. It's like fast food franchises...gotta buy in, gotta buy out.
From Sky Daddy?
From anyone – why would you need permission to leave the church? Unless there are questions of property and stuff I guess?
Bingo https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/more-congregations-are-ditching-the
OT but important as hell: A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-russia-intelligence-trump-dg/
Most incompetent President ever. Who and what will suffer because of this bungling buffoon? And the GQP want him BACK in office?
The more of a mess he makes, and the more it blows up in the news, the more they can get away with while the public eye is watching the spectacle and not the 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 of the GQP's fuckery.
Yup. I was being all-inclusive. His corruption is a given. He's a clear and present danger to the country.
Semi OT : Governements should never meddle with history*, it can easily be turned into propaganda.
Jules Michelet, albeit liberal, was a nationalist and promoted "Le roman hational". Nearly 2 centuries later historians are still debunking his falsehoods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Michelet
* Or medicine.
I'm reminded of a case, some years ago, where an atheist group was trying to get a bus ad placed- I forget in what city (does anyone else remember this one?)- and the ad proposals kept getting rejected as too inflammatory. The message got shorter and shorter and the ad less and less elaborate with each successive proposal, until finally the ad consisted simply of the word "Atheism" on a blank background. The ad 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 got rejected at least once more; I can't recall whether or not it was approved on appeal, or whether there was a lawsuit over it, or what the end result of the whole episode was.
(*𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵- Based on others' posts below, I suspect I might be thinking of several different cases and misremembering them as the same one. Which... kinda makes it 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦, come to think of it.)
The point being... we've all seen how Christians react when anyone tries to remind them that theirs isn't the only worldview allowed out in daylight. Hell, we got a potent reminder of their petulance just last night! The examples of Christians attempting- by abuse of authority or, when that fails, by violence- to exclude other viewpoints from public life are too numerous to count... but I can't think offhand of a single instance of religious discrimination in this country, against a Christian, by anyone else besides 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 Christian (and certainly not over anything as widely popular in Christian circles as the "Christian Nation" lie).
So... I'm gonna go ahead and "Press X to Doubt" that there was any religious discrimination involved here. I somehow can't see there being enough non-Christians, let alone non-Christians who actively 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦 Christians, in whichever WMATA office approves transit ads to 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 engage in anti-Christian discrimination with any degree of success. It's far more likely that someone in the office recognized the proposed ads for the misinformation they are, or that some other factor led to the rejection.
I think Hemant made a post about it, I can't remember if it was here, patheos or os.
I remember reading about this when we were still with Disqus/Patheos, but it also started in England back around the time I became homeless (2009).
Here's RationalWki's take on the "Atheist bus campaign":
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_bus_campaign
"The campaign started when journalist and blogger Ariane Sherine . . ."
Hmmm, why does that name seem familiar? 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Sherine
Nope. I regularly see her avatar, as well as yours, among the people who like Hemant's blogs.
Hmm. Two different atheists with the same name. That's one heckuva coincidence.
It would've been a long time ago. Like, Reason Rally hadn't happened yet and Ed's Dispatches from the Culture Wars was still on FTB long ago.
I miss Ed.
The one I remember is more recent. I only knew the regretted Ed Brayton on patheos. I am quasi sure it was after his death.
There's certainly more than one such case to remember, too, which complicates things a bit...
There's this one in PA which I suspect is the one most of us remember Hemant writing about:
https://www.aclupa.org/en/press-releases/federal-appeals-court-rules-transit-authority-cant-exclude-religious-and-atheist
Though the google search also turned up incidents down under and just north of US.
...and now I think my memory must have mushed several different cases together. Either that's a sad commentary on how often shit like this has happened, or I need to have a second cup of coffee before I hit the keyboard. Or both.
I think you're right. When I saw Justin Vaculas's name my brain went, "Yes, I remember this one".
Do you remember the Metroplex Atheists suing Fort Worth over their ability to display banners with their views?
IIRC, that was also WMATA, though my memory is hazy.
I wonder what would happen if I approached the transit authority with an offer to buy thousands of dollars worth of ads that said "David Barton of Wallbuilders is a proven serial liar and nobody should trust a single thing he ever says." Would this perhaps run afoul of the policy of declining anything “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying public opinions”? Or would the fact that it's 100% factually accurate override that? I guess what I'm really asking here is "What's more important, facts or opinions?".
"What's more important, facts or opinions?"
Probably neither. Feelings, especially those of butt-hurt Christian snowflakes, most likely override any other consideration, possibly including decisions regarding advertisements.
"Truthiness".
Ya know ... I never cared for that noise back when it was Stephen Colbert's shtick, never thought it was funny. Now, to me, it's just one more indicator of the lack of respect for actual facts and truth.
In America? opinions.
I would tend to use "pseudo-historian" rather than serial liar, although I imagine at least some of the people who read it wouldn't understand what it means.